Whoever the wife decides should name the child. She risks her life in childbirth, and has the crap stretched out of her privates (and if stuff goes wrong, gets sliced up too). Giving birth is just like having surgery without anesthesia, the man is just a spectator. No amount of monetary compensation or act (except lifesaving) can ever equal the "cost" of a life. The woman's gift to her husband is the child, his gift should at the very least be to not argue about whatever name she chooses.......besides, the husband already gave the child his last name.........

........but I think traditionally the husband names the sons and the wife names the daughters.....This is one of the many things that should be discussed before marriage(how each other feels about the issue)

But in my ancestral tradition, the child is named after an ancestor. Or we give them a name that we want them to become, or something out of experience concerning them. We also believe that a name determines the child's... sort of... destiny. Like their personality & attitudes. For example my african name means Child of the Rainstorm. I was named after my aunt who was born under a tent (meant for childbirth) in the forest during a heavy rainstorm. In our ancestral traditions we honored The Earth, so all aspects of nature have different meanings for us.

With my parents, my father named all 3 of us. The names weren't bad, except my mom wasn't happy that she had no input (my dad was chauvinistic /overbearing), not even being able to choose a middle name for us (we have none). My eldest sister has the same name as my mom ("triad"), and the rest of us just have a random name (old fashioned type name). ("To bind", & "foreigner") They ended up divorcing after 25 years of marriage and numerous (my father's) affairs.

With my kids, my husband & I attempted to name our first son, but we couldn't agree. I really wasn't a stickler for the name I wanted, and I kind of liked the name my husband picked, so we went with that....We couldn't agree on a middle name. We even left naming him for the last minute, but we couldn't agree ....so he didn't get a middle name. We figured he could give himself one if he wanted to in the future, although it will cost him ($$$). His name means "victory of the people".

With the 2nd kid, I had a combo of being unhappy that I couldn't give our 1st the name I wanted especially after experiencing all I had to go through for the pregnancy and natural childbirth (no time for drugs). (This kid almost died twice, once before birth and once after birth.) I named the 2nd kid the name I intended for the 1st one, and just like the 1st child we didn't give him a 2nd name (same reason as the 1st time). His name means "small", which is ironic, 'cause he turned out to be super tall and towers over us all.

The 3rd kid (best pregnancy & childbirth ever) I named the male version of my beloved grandmother's name who had died about 2 years earlier. I figured we weren't going to have any daughters (I was right), and that this would be our last kid (wrong) . His name means "strong".

With our last son I went through some unbelievably hellish stuff (life & death, physical & mental pain beyond imagination) to bring him into this world alive. His twin had died really early during the pregnancy too. That is the reason he is the only one to have a middle name (in honor of his lost sibling). His 1st name means "warrior"/"fighter" his second name means "twin".

My husband didn't really care much about naming them unless the names were too unusual (which they weren't). After him witnessing all I had to go through (pregnancy/watching the births), he agreed that I should be the one to name them all after the 1st kid.

I think it isn't inherently either the man or woman's choice in what to name their child. It should be something mutually agreed upon by both whether it's them both agreeing on the name or agreeing the man/woman should do the naming.

When you get married/have a long term relationship together you can't claim what you you bring in to the relationship is solely yours to do what you want with. For example, the person bringing home the money can't claim they get 100% the power and right on how and what they spend the money on since it directly effects both of them, even if they did all the work for that money on their own.

schnipdipwrote:
You know that there was a study done and getting hit in the nuts is about 1000x greater pain then childbirth.
Just saiyan.

Hey Super Saiyan, I want the references for that, and also the total pain experienced when comparing one foot to the nuts versus 9 months of pregnancy and 26 hours of back labor. We don't have to figure post partum experiences into the calculations, or that men are sensitive pansies who can't even get a tattoo without crying about how much it hurts.

Just kidding. Pain is an emotional response to overwhelming stimuli, and so is completely dependent upon the individual's experience and perception. There is no empirical way to measure pain, so we are forced to rely on this stupid rating system.

When I had been in labor for 25 hours, and about 45 minutes before I was run to the operating room for an emergency C-section, I told the anesthesiologist that on a scale of 1 to 10 (with 10 being the worst pain I could ever imagine), my pain was about a 4. Apparently this was a first for him, as most expectant mothers have gone out of their minds by the time he shows up. I am not particularly emotional, have a great imagination, and frankly had to be talked into receiving anesthesia on the grounds that it might help me get my baby out sooner.

In my life I've experienced some painful things, including the other "most painful experience" that is often compared to childbirth - passing a kidney stone. For four hours it was all I could do to keep my body from going into shock, so I have a pretty good data set for comparison. The rumor is right - passing a kidney stone is pain similar to transitional labor, only during labor you get a rest every few minutes. Of course labor usually lasts longer, so it probably evens out.

However, comparing the different kinds of pain that I have experienced, I will say that both delivering a baby and passing a kidney stone are far more painful and debilitating than walking on/working with a broken bone. I prefer 2nd-degree burns to breaking bones, and lacerations/contusions from getting into fights/accidents are relatively minor. Since I've never had testicles I don't know what it's like to be kicked in them, but if you'd rather be kicked in the nuts than walk on a freshly broken leg you now have a frame of reference for the pain spectrum of delivering babies.

Not to disprove any of that, cause i didnt bother reading it all, but there is a way to measure and calculate pain. A metric
system. Id rather walk on my broken hands then get kicked in the nuts. U ladies really dont know how painful it is. Ever heard of that childish game called Ball Tapping. Its where u lighty tap an unexpecting person in the nuts, nit very hard, no harder then a light flick. It feels like ur balls went straight to ur throwt. Now imagine getting kicked in the nuts.

Not to disprove any of that, cause i didnt bother reading it all, but there is a way to measure and calculate pain. A metric
system. Id rather walk on my broken hands then get kicked in the nuts. U ladies really dont know how painful it is. Ever heard of that childish game called Ball Tapping. Its where u lighty tap an unexpecting person in the nuts, nit very hard, no harder then a light flick. It feels like ur balls went straight to ur throwt. Now imagine getting kicked in the nuts.

Is this a contest? How about imagine something the size of a basketball bursting out of your crotch?

I think they both should discuss it, I mean maybe one wants to use family names.
I have names I like and have discussed it with my boyfriend but he has some ideas too.
I think it should really be a decision made with both parents.

As many have said, I believe that both parents should be involved. Furthermore, I don't believe that any person should make household decisions or decisions about child rearing to the exclusion of their spouses input. If the two disagree, that's another matter entirely, and I have my own opinions about that, but speaking ideally, I'd say that both should work it out.

Personally, I don't see how that line of reasoning stops at naming. Why not take it to its logical extreme and apply it to the whole process of child rearing? When you consider it like that, perhaps you see my issue with it in this specific instance. One spouse trying to pull seniority over the other to the exclusion of their input seems to violate the spirit of marriage to me personally.

But these are just the ramblings of an inexperienced, traditionalist fool, so take them as you will.